Newbie 476: Slow, slow, slow, then FAST and over. Damn.

[havok95]

Thanks to random.org, I will

vote stephy_nz

, but I'm not married to my vote by any means.

[havok95]

If I see you make an apparently random vote, or if I ask a particular player a question, or if stephy_nz tells us who she thinks the scum are (even at this very early stage) - that's all information. If I can see that your vote is truly random, however, it tells me nothing but that you think a vote is required at this point and you think rolling dice is an acceptable start.

Random voting is the crutch of the player that hasn't considered the alternatives.

You can get information out of random votes--specifically, how certain people react to having a vote on them. My vote will likely change in the next couple of pages as a post history; the more posts there are, the better it is for the town--even if we lynch a townie by mistake, we can go back and look at all their posts and make decisions based on that. Random votes are a better way to get people talking than asking them nicely.

[havok95]

Sorry guys, I had an exam today, and I had to give myself enough time to get high and watch Swingers instead of studying. Most of what I've seen in the last page or so has been probability talk, which needs to end right now. Everyone has a 2/7 chance of being scum BEFORE THEY START POSTING. Once that happens, the chances that they are scum could increase or decrease (if they display scum tells left and right, for instance, the chance is better than 2/7).

I'll reread the actual game talk now and have a post in about half an hour.

[havok95]

Okay, so it takes longer than I thought to read and reread three pages of arguments about coin-flipping. Here's a rundown of stuff I came across that I found interesting:

(NOTE: I read everyone's posts all together and then wrote my thoughts on them, that's why it's grouped into questions/thoughts on each player; I'm not trying to pick on anyone)

-jmar OMGUS voted Tornado and hasn't unvoted yet; do you actually think OMGUS is a good way to decide who to vote for? Or is that just a joking vote, in which case, why haven't you unvoted?
-jmar also agreed with stephy_nz's logic in post 21, then asked Korlash why he assumed stephy was town in post 25. Although in 21 jmar doesn't quite say stephy is pro-town, it is sort of implied, I think. jmar, what's your opinion on stephy_nz?
-jmar speculated briefly about the doctor's night choice; this is a bad, bad idea. The things we don't know about said choice could fill a warehouse; we don't know if there even is a doc, we don't know who said doc is, we don't know what they think about everyone in the game, we don't know what they will think at the end of day 1, and it's just another application of WIFOM.
-jmar suggested that Mith is a resource to the town, which is not necessarily true; just because he is IC doesn't make him any more useful than the other townies
-I don't have enough on jmar yet to vote or even FOS him, but I would not be surprised if he turned up scum.

-Korlash has mostly looked good in my eyes; he seems to be actively scum-hunting. I think he might be enjoying the game a little too much; the constant jokes could possibly be an attempt at distraction from scum tells (or, maybe he smoked too much hash before posting, who knows?). I wouldn't have a beer with him, but I put him in the town column for now.
-One thing Korlash mentioned was that he trusted stephy and distrusted Mith due to his gut. While evidence and scum tells are great for weeding out the mafia, I have found gut to be very helpful (ICS, PLEASE CORRECT ME IF I'M WRONG). I would be quite hesitant to vote someone who I felt in my gut was town, even if they had displayed scum tells. I don't think any of us should abandon our gut, is all I'm saying.

-Sir_Tornado seems to have quieted down. One thing I wonder though--he agreed with mith in post 32 that rolling dice is a bad way to vote. He still hasn't unvoted, though. Slight FOS; of course, it's possible that he's just really busy and hasn't had time to post, like me/Holy/stephy; or maybe he's lurking because he's scum and he got called out on the first couple of pages (WIFOM alert!).

-stephy_nz, when you come back, we need to hear your thoughts on your no-lynch vote after the explanations from a couple of players as to why that's a bad idea. Do you still think no-lynch is the best idea? If you do, stick to it, but weigh the evidence.

-We also need more from Holy, who seems to just post without substance (as Mith put it); by the way, Holy, saying "It's my first game too but I would rather lynch than no-lynch, stephy must be scum!" is WIFOM.

-Mith, I have a similar feeling about you as I do about jmar and Tornado, that any of you are acting townie now, but could easily be scum. I'm going to

unvote: stephy_nz

, because she hasn't done anything scummy and if she gets replaced I'll unvote her replacement anyway. I'm not going to vote anyone yet because I'm still not sure. I'll wait and see how everyone reacts to this post.

[havok95]

The doc comment was integral to my point of why the scum would want to kill Mith off by lynch.

Can you really not see why this is WIFOM and quite pointless?

Also, please explain to me why you think my agreeing with stephy's post makes me think she's pro-town? I never said anything of the sort- that's a huge leap in logic.

I wouldn't call it huge, but yeah, it's a bit of a leap. Still, you jumped on Korlash pretty quickly when he said he thought stephy was town, and you didn't seem to shwo any signs of doubting her townness, that's all.

Sir Tornado hasn't unvoted me, you didn't unvote stephy until just now, so what's your point? It was an OMGUS vote and that hasn't changed. I'm not ready to seriously vote for anybody yet.

A) I unvoted stephy because a couple other suspects popped up and she hadn't done anything scummy; B)I still agreed with my reason for voting stephy (I still think random votes are a good idea) and Sir_Tornado has said he disagreed with random voting; C)Aren't OMGUS votes a BAD thing? Can someone help me here? I thought OMGUS voting was a sign of desperation and a scum tell.

Oh, and Tornado already defended himself. You don't have to do it for him.

For reacting exactly how I thought a mafioso would,

FOS: jmar

for now.

[havok95]

Well havok95, because my suspect doesn't post, what can I say

Scum hunt. There are two scum; find the other one or try to convince us of why you think stephy is scum (by the way, you shouldn't think she is scum, because it's WIFOM)

And Korlash, that was the impression I got of jmar's OMGUS vote, that it was just pretty random. And I missed the sentence "I'm not ready to seriously vote someone yet" the first time, so I guess that's how he thinks of it too.

[havok95]

What was I supposed to do, not respond to your accusations?

Defend yourself like Korlash, mith and Sir_Tornado did. Without acting as defensive as you are.

Okay I'll try to give longer explanation of my opinion... This is MAFIA game, in this game we try to find who is the mafia, every little suspicion might lead us to the mafia, even if we end up wrong and lynch a townie, we can learn the progress till why the hell that could happen (BTW, Her example is if we lynch a townie in day 1 --> Why is her example is a townie, I'd like to think we can get a mafia in day 1 --> maybe it's just my positive thinking here...)

The only reason you have given for suspecting her is that you think what she's doing is something a mafioso would do. THAT IS WIFOM. That is why you shouldn't really suspect her.

[havok95]

Defending yourself--use logic to answer my questions, the way you did with my accusations about your OMGUS vote, and the way Korlash/mith responded.

Acting defensive--Acting like you have something to hide. (I.E., scumminess)

That's what I meant; I apologize for not being clear. Seriously, your post was exactly what I was looking for as a response to my post in terms of defensiveness. In all fairness, Holy is starting to act the same way, and you also have some "pro-town" points in my book as well, which is why I won't vote for you unless you

really

trip my scumdar.

[havok95]

My bad. I meant mith and Sir_Tornado. I agreed with your logic about "gut" votes, but you were just agreeing with mith, not responding to me outright.

Oh, and the only way to offend me is to keep making awful puns. Seriously, that could get you lynched.

[havok95]

My argument about Holy's argument being WIFOM is sort of the opposite of the traditional WIFOM argument, I think. Holy said she wanted to find/lynch scum, even though it was her first game, so since stephy_nz wanted to no-lynch in her first game, she must be scum. That entire argument rests on the assumption that Holy is town.

Simply turn this:

origin is a specific type of argument: "I wouldn't _____ if I were scum."

into this:

I wouldn't NOT __________ if I were NOT scum

And you'll see what I mean. By the way, I hope it's obvious that I was joking when I said I'd lynch Korlash for bad puns. Also, mith, I realize my logic about jmar's OMGUS vote is faulty. I've also considered the possibility that I'm only following the jmar FOS based on my gut, not really on evidence, so I'm not prepared to vote just yet.

[havok95]

MOD: can we get a prod on stephy_nz? She hasn't posted in a while and it's starting to affect the game.

[havok95]

Sorry guys, I had work/Thanksgiving shit/readings to get through. I'll try to have something worthwhile to post tomorrow.

[havok95]

I'm Canadian. Our Thanksgiving was this past weekend.
I wish there was a way to say I'm rather trusting of lionden and more suspicious of jmar without making it look suspicious against me. Lionden has displayed some good logic, scum-hunting, and attempts to keep the thread moving--good points all. Jmar, on the other hand, claims I "came in making pointless accusations." Could you clarify that for me? Which accusations have I made that you would consider "pointless", and why do you think that makes me scummy?

Also, something I just picked up on a re-read. You claimed earlier that mith, as an IC, was a "resource" to the town. Mith then said he was "pretty happy" with my post, and as far as I can remember, hasn't cast any suspicion my way. Why are you disagreeing with mith after claiming that you held his opinion in high regard?

[havok95]

Jmar--I was baiting you with the mith question to see if you would respond defensively. Earlier, I said something along the lines of "you seem to trust stephy_nz, then you later say she's scummy. What's your opinion on stephy_nz?" and, rather than answer the question, you started talking about how you never said you trusted stephy and I was wrong to assume that, etc. I thought, if you responded in a similar fashion this time, I could bring it up to "trap" you. You had to go and spoil it by being rational. I'm taking my FOS off you for now. Even though I still don't know what "accusations" you're talking about, you've acted fairly town recently.

Back to the drawing board...I should just vote Korlash for the puns instead.

[havok95]

"Trapping" in any way is kinda scummy... If you reread something and then come up with a lot of the same things happening you can bring them all up.. but if you intentionally try to make a person do something you can use against them it seems... well scummy to me... You could say your doing something to judge their response and if they do a certain one then you would jump on that case

See, the only way jmar would get trapped is if he fell for it. I was trying to 'trap/bait' jmar into acting defensive rather than simply answering a question, like I felt he had done before. The only way this is bad for jmar is if he acts defensive rather than simply answering a question. And if jmar acts defensive rather than simply answering a question...he's scummy.

[havok95]

You used something that you admittedly knew was off-base. If I acted defensive to something that was baseless to begin with, you're the scummy one, not I, for trying to turn nothing into something.

Can you show me where I admitted that my accusation was baseless? I was genuinely curious as to why you disagreed with mith after claiming he was a resource for the town. And, how should I have addressed your defensiveness with regard to the stephy_nz question? I thought you were acting defensive/scummy. My other alternative was to put it out in the open, and (if you were scum) completely show my hand WRT my suspicions about you, giving you ample opportunities to construct a lie.

Top three scummiest...that's gonna be hard. I do have a problem with Holy's inconsistency and lack of scum-hunting as pointed out by Mith. I would not be surprised if jmar, Sir_Tornado or mith were outed as scum; I would be if Korlash was. As for lionsden, I haven't seen much but that just means that he hasn't had any errors in logic that I have noticed.

If nothing new happens between now and next Friday, I'll reread the thread for the umpteenth time and make a decision on who to vote for (if I were forced to vote right now, it'd be on Holy.)

[havok95]

I don't see why the "bait" has to be "sketchy". And, like everything else, this has dissolved into an argument about semantics. And I agree with you in regards to Sir_Tornado.

[havok95]

Well, what's your definition of baiting then? Because I took that as you were trying to get me to "take the bait" by using something you knew to be sketchy to "trap" me. If you were "genuinely curious," then why didn't you just say so? Where'd the baiting thing come from? Asking a question and gauging a response and "baiting" are two completely different things in my book (and from the responses, most people here agree with me), so maybe that's why we're disagreeing on this.

I'll answer your questions. Baiting-n.-using something to entice a person to commit certain actions that the baiter wants to occur. It need not be "sketchy" or "unfounded". My choices were a)bait you or b)ask you. Can you not see how option b) gives you a zillion different opportunities to lie? Assuming you are scum, you could just lie in a few different ways if I ask nicely.

I realize that all the town can have is information. That is our only real weapon against scum. I was merely trying to get information. You know that "if a tree falls in the forest and nobody hears it, does it make a sound?" thing? It's sort of like that. If I tell you I want to know whether you will act defensive again, you won't, you'll be prepared. If I don't tell you, you will react to a question in a way that is natural. If you are scum, it'd probably be defensiveness. If you were town, it'd probably be logical and reasonable. You're batting .500 right now as far as the stephy_nz and mith questions, but it's good enough for me.

I should point out that the only thing that could've changed this whole discussion is if you responded defensively AS YOU HAD BEFORE. Was that a habit you have or a one-time thing? I don't know how to explain my reasons for "baiting" you any clearer. The fact is, you responded in such a way that I think you're town, at least for now. I don't have enough against you to rationalize a vote, so I'm not going to vote for you.

Does that help?

PS--MeMe, could we get a vote count for this page?

[havok95]

A) Do you really believe that I contradicted myself when I called mith a resource to the town and then disagreed with him? That's really grasping at straws.

No, I wanted to know whether you had a good reason to disagree with such a "resource" (you'll note that I thought mith wasn't necessarily a resource, and you defended him). A good reason to disagree with mith would be that you think I'm scum--which you do. If you had no good reason to disagree with mith but did anyway, you'd be contradicting yourself about him being a resource; the only reason to do that would be if you knew for sure what my alignment was, and the only way you could know that is if you were scum. You had a good reason to disagree with mith, my question was answered, and you look more like a townie in the process.

B) Could you explain why you find my response to your first question and my response to your second question so different? Because, honestly, I don't see it. I think I was being logical on both accounts- then again, a second perspective would be nice. Maybe you're reading my first response differently than I intended.

Sure, I'll even post them both for you:

-Also, please explain to me why you think my agreeing with stephy's post makes me think she's pro-town? I never said anything of the sort- that's a huge leap in logic.

When I say Mith is a resource to the town, I mean that he can help out the newer players, pick up on scum tells, and make worthwile and well-though out posts. It doesn't mean I'm going to blindly follow him wherever he may lead. There's still a good chance he's scum, so that would be utterly ridiculous.

You're right, they look pretty similar. Except your first response is answering my question, "what do you think of stephy_nz?" and the second is "why are you disagreeing with mith after claiming you hold his opinion in high regard?".

You never actually told me what you think of stephy_nz

. Instead, you told me I was making "huge leaps in logic" and "I never said stephy was town!", which reeked of defensiveness to me.

I don't mean to keep picking on you, but you ARE my vote right now and I want to be sure I'm not lynching a fellow townie (of course, you can never really be 100% sure).

Pick all you want. I'd rather answer a question a hundred times to make sure you understand rather than answer it once and have you misunderstand (especially if I end up swinging and we go into day two without the advantage of asking questions.)

And FYI this quote is killed then from what you say... You said Jmar acted defensively the first time, then he didn't the second time... so what is he then? Half mafia half town?

I agree the mafia will sometimes be more likely to defend themselves but not always, it is never safe to assume that.

He acted defensive the first time, so I FOSed him. IF he had acted defensive the second time, I would've been more suspicious--probably would've voted depending on his wording. He acted logically, so I think jmar's actions just reinforce what you said--how any townie can get defensive and any scum can act logically. And I think the second part of that quote can and should be taken further--the mafia are more likely to act defensively, to the point that I consider it a scum tell. Everyone--tell me why defensiveness (NOT THE SAME AS DEFENDING YOURSELF) shouldn't be a scum tell.

Mith says Holy's not voting... Holy votes next post... curious. Seems a bit like appeasement to me.

Now who's reaching? Although, now that I think about it, I'm not sure how I feel about mith pushing the voting in the twilight hours. It could be seen as a way to encourage us to vote for a townie rather than not vote--however, voting IS the only tool we have to eliminate scum. IGMEOY mith, but I doubt I'll vote since every other post from you has rubbed me the right way (Korlash, if you make some pun out of this, I'll vote for you)

I'll reread this tomorrow night and, hopefully, find someone scummy enough to vote for.

[havok95]

Hey guys, I'm still here, I've just been busy celebrating...I mean, mourning...the death of Doctor Mith with my scum buddies. I mean, fishing buddies.

Joking aside, I think this thread deserves a reread from me, so I may post tomorrow. Also, I was inactive because I have been very busy with schoolwork--I don't know whose arguments this helps or hurts because I haven't read the arguments of the last couple pages very closely (I'm saving that for a reread), but I think it's important to get it all out there.

[havok95]

Sorry guys, I've been swamped with school and work. I'm going to do one huge reread tonight (in addition to the other 800 things I need to read) and I'll hopefully have a post for you. I'll try to stay on here over the next few days to see how the deadline plays out.